Skyscript Astrology Forum

On another hand it is again described as a mitigation to aversion but in a slightly different manner. In this assertion, if Venus were in Libra she would not need an aspect to Taurus (or planets there) because when in one domicile she need not "see" the other; in other words she would nonetheless have a valid and strong testimony towards the other domicile she is in aversion to. But in this case also, it is relevant only to the ruler in one of its domiciles.

Hello steven,

First of all thank you so much for responding. Having someone with your degree of knowledge and experience around is a real asset to the forum.

I am probably being particularly slow on the uptake here but I am struggling to understand the distinction between the first and second examples you gave. I think I follow the first example. I just dont quite grasp the difference with the second one. Could you kindly unpack this a little bit more for the benefit of the more obtuse like myself?

Thanks

Mark

I like the idea that it is designed in order to unite signs that do not "behold" eachother:

Jupiter Sag Pi = 90 degrees
Venus is 150
Mars is 150
Saturn is 30
Mercury is 90

How about that for a symmectrically designed system.

Sun and Moon to me are an interesting thing to look at because they, like Saturn are 30. Curious that neither has dignity in the others sign.

Hi, Mark C

Aversion, as you know, is when a planet is in a sign that doesn?t behold another planet or sign.

In the first case, a planet (any planet) in Libra wouldn?t be in aversion to any planet in taurus. E.g., mars in libra wouldn?t be in aversion to jupiter in taurus.

In the second case, the ruler of taurus, venus, when in libra, wouldn?t be in aversion to taurus, and whatever it may signify. E.g, if taurus is your second house, and venus is in libra, venus can still manage the matters of the second house without the problems of aversion.

At least this is what I understood :-)

Hello Yuzuru,

Thanks for clarifying that.

The second interpretation is a fortunate release from something I hadn't even perceived as a problem before now.

It seems to provide yet another justification for the the view that the more planets you possess in their domicile rulership sign the better. I was clearly at the end of the queue when these were being passed out.

A planet's testimony concerning the affairs of its domcile, when in aversion to its own domicile, was "weak" and full of controversy and conflict. If a planet did not fall in one of its domiciles and was in aversion, then it needed a "helper". That was an angular planet to which the planet in aversion would be joined to and the angular planet could render its light to its domicile from a "strong" place. This was a mitigation of that aversion to its domicile

Thanks Steven,

I have seen this explained in relation to the ascendant ruler but I have not applied this approach systematically before as you suggest. Its very interesting. I have been trying to look at this technique in practical terms in my own chart. I have taken one issue. The fact the ruler of my second house (Mercury) is in aversion to this house.

I have Mercury as ruler of my second house whole sign (Gemini) but it is placed in the cadent 9th house (Capricorn) in close conjunction with Venus. This looks a difficult placement considering Mercury is in aversion to the 2nd house. Taken on its own shouldn't this highlight all kinds of financial difficulties?

That has certainly never been the case. I am not wealthy but have never experienced real financial hardship either. I almost feel like I have a Guardian Angel that seems to pull me out of any really rough financial difficulties.

So I am wondering where my astrological 'helpers' have come from? I do have Sun in the 10th house ( Aquarius) which forms a trine to the second house. However, it is in its sign of detriment and in aversion to Mercury itself. Saturn as domicile ruler of the 9th and 10th house (in its face)is placed in the 11th house (Pisces) and forms a plactic sextile to the ascendant (Taurus) and 9th house (Capricorn). It also forms a square to the 2nd house (Gemini). As domicile ruler Saturn obviously indirectly brings together my Sun and Mercury. The problem is that Saturn is not 'angular' in my chart. Although the 11th house is probably as good as it gets after an angular house. Plus this one is disposited by an angular Jupiter. Saturn is also the day triplicity ruler of Gemini. However, I dont know if triplicity rulers were an appropriate consideration for hellenistic astrologers in this specific context.

I was wondering if the tight trine from Jupiter on my ASC degree to Mercury/Venus mitigates this aversion somewhat? Although, Jupiter in the 1st is in aversion to the second house too so perhaps I am clutching at straws to find an explanation for my apparent lack of poverty! Or is this a case that supports the notion that planets in signs with the same domicile ruler only form a mitigated version of aversion?

Another possibility is that Gemini and Capricorn are Equally Ascending signs or what are known in horary as Contra-Antiscional signs. As there is no specific degree for the 2nd house itself might this mitigating factor be brought into play here?

If none of these factors explain it I guess I go to the North Node in my the second house and the POF in the 11th house disposited by an angular Jupiter, and placed in a sign mid-way between Mercury and the Ascendant. The POF like Saturn can also 'see' the 2nd house.

One outstanding question for me here is whether in hellenistic astrology aversion is even more problematic than the generally negative aspects like the opposition or square?

Hi,

One outstanding question for me here is whether in hellenistic astrology aversion is even more problematic than the generally negative aspects like the opposition or square?

Good question.

First I would like to say that the two situations can be, ultimately, both called aversion, even if stricto sensu only the lack of any relation between two elements of a chart can be called aversion.

I wondered myself too, if in Greek astrology aversion was more problematic (as you say) than negative aspect.

My answer is that I think they believed the aversion to be more problematic than a negative aspect.

Why? I think it?s more a matter of philosophy here. Aspects (and here I am referring to a lato sensu meaning of the word aspect) were considered among other factors to be responsible for the mixture of the nature (krasis), virtue of planets (a sort of temperament of planets), mixture which determines after all if and how the planet manifest their significations.

So, to be more explicit, it is better to have, something which in certain conjuncture can bring some advantages for the native, than to have nothing (nothing meaning that in some way the potential of that planet is blocked). In my country it is a saying that as long as people talk about you, you exist, and if they talk bad about you, this means that you worth their attention .

I hope I brought some light and not just my speculations.

My answer is that I think they believed the aversion to be more problematic than a negative aspect.

That is a very interesting notion to ponder and study in charts. Its so different to the modernist notion of a quincunx being a mild irritation

I have certainly noticed that the people I seem to have the most difficult synastry with have multiple aversions to key points in my chart.

I have now come across this excellent series of articles by Steven which explains much more fully the issues providing mitigation against aversion operating.

http://www.astrologycom.com/livingsigns3.html

http://www.astrologycom.com/livingsigns4.html

In short Steven seems to accept your basic proposition.

The Inconjunction was the worse that could happen, so an opposition was preferable to that, like the lesser of two evils. It at least brought the planet back into the workings of the whole chart.

I wish I had seen this before my last post. Especially, as the aversion between Capricorn and Gemini is specifically discussed as one of the mitigated examples where the signs are in a Like-Ascensional aka Contra-Antiscional relationship.

In my country it is a saying that as long as people talk about you, you exist, and if they talk bad about you, this means that you worth their attention .

Maybe. Or perhaps we use the French saying 'the absent are always wrong'. In this case the signs in aversion are very wrong!

My point with the Venus, Mars and Saturn rulerships was that these signs are all as you have now decided to quote "in aversion".

But my thinking is that how can a planet be in aversion to itself? How can signs ruled by the same planet not be in contact with the planet of which they are both ruled by.

It?s a very basic question in Astrology regarding rulership. When you take a house to be ruled by a planet, because it falls in a certain sign it is therefore indicative that the higher aversion would be from planets which are not convoluted in the sense that they are.

Maybe. Or perhaps we use the French saying 'the absent are always wrong'. In this case the signs in aversion are very wrong!

The nature of aversion is indeed, without saying oriented according to the houses without per-say the nature given to them according to solar strength which is mitigated against the fact of the Earth?s concentrated force in the Ascendant, the point at which the sky is intercepted on the Eastern Horizon at first light.

Hence the houses of aversion are 12th 2nd and 6th and 8th the houses of weakness in aversion to the point of Solar strength grounded in Earth.


On the other hand perhaps this is evidence for the aversion of "aversion":

I have certainly noticed that the people I seem to have the most difficult synastry with have multiple aversions to key points in my chart.

Most difficult synastry is not necessary an absence of the existence of ties between such counterpart signs. The differentiation that I have made however, is one that is based on the Tropical Solar path which is related to the Ecliptic and not the houses, for it is not the houses that I believe hold the key to this mystery, houses being in an equal system to hold aversion, however in most other systems with the MC calculated and equated in the house division there can only be a rulership which is based on signs and therefore:

This was one of the worse things that could happen to a planet, to fall in a zoidion that was in aversion to its domicile zoidion. It was called falling amiss.

However, in the example that I have given the zoidions of mutually ruled signs with the exception of Mercury and Jupiter all fall into this category, which is why there seems to be an intended relational counterbalance between domicile by day and domicile by night and in there relation to the Solar path it?s my humble opinion that the connection is made through what some have quoted as "like-engirdling" though this is probably more of a misleading concept because it denegrates the symmetrical design without acknowledging the reasons behind it.

Hi Night Sky,

My point with the Venus, Mars and Saturn rulerships was that these signs are all as you have now decided to quote "in aversion".

I am sorry if you feel the thread has run away somewhat from the precise focus that motivated you to begin it. Thats rather an occupational hazard of starting a thread on skyscript I am afraid.

Following Deb's suggestion it seemed the Hellenistic astrologers had more to say about this topic than most other parts of the tradition. Also several of us here are very interested in the hellenistic approach to astrology.

But my thinking is that how can a planet be in aversion to itself? How can signs ruled by the same planet not be in contact with the planet of which they are both ruled by.

That is a fair point. It does seem counter-intuitive from a modern perspective. I think the point the ancient astrologers were making is that such a planet may be unable to 'see' the relevant house/sign because it does not form a Ptolemaic aspect. However, as Steven's article makes clear the hellenistic astrologers regarded having a common planetary ruler as one of the three mitigating factors against the worst effects of aversion.

It?s a very basic question in Astrology regarding rulership. When you take a house to be ruled by a planet, because it falls in a certain sign it is therefore indicative that the higher aversion would be from planets which are not convoluted in the sense that they are

.

I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at here. If you mean aversion is less of a problem when signs share the same planetary ruler that seems to be a given. The origin of the notion of aversion is based on a whole sign approach where houses =signs. That changes with the advent of quadrant houses and planetary orbs rather than signs dictating aspects. It changes further in modern astrology where degrees determine aspectual relationships. There are therefore inevitably different approaches to this issue depending on how the individual astrologer chooses to work with aspects and houses.

Hence the houses of aversion are 12th 2nd and 6th and 8th the houses of weakness in aversion to the point of Solar strength grounded in Earth.

Yes I agree although I find your repeated use of the term 'solar strength' a little bewildering. Surely the key point is these houses relationship to the ascendant irrespective of what the Sun is doing in the chart? Having said that I do not deny the diurnal motion of the planets was also an important factor in the traditional associations of the houses.

However, in the example that I have given the zoidions of mutually ruled signs with the exception of Mercury and Jupiter all fall into this category, which is why there seems to be an intended relational counterbalance between domicile by day and domicile by night and in there relation to the Solar path it?s my humble opinion that the connection is made through what some have quoted as "like-engirdling" though this is probably more of a misleading concept because it denegrates the symmetrical design without acknowledging the reasons behind it.

So in a nutshell the hellenistic approach to this doesn't impress you? Fair enough. I suppose a hellenistic astrologer could equally argue that quadrant houses and modern rulerships spoil the 'symmetrical design' of whole sign houses and traditional rulerships.

Most difficult synastry is not necessary an absence of the existence of ties between such counterpart signs

Of course not. I accept there are many other possibilities for difficult synastry. However, I feel the notion of signs in aversion is a concept you seldom see discussed in modern astrological books on synastry. Its certainly not presented as a real difficulty in the way the hellenistic astrologers presented it.

The differentiation that I have made however, is one that is based on the Tropical Solar path which is related to the Ecliptic and not the houses, for it is not the houses that I believe hold the key to this mystery, houses being in an equal system to hold aversion, however in most other systems with the MC calculated and equated in the house division there can only be a rulership which is based on signs

This where I think our communication is perhaps getting 'inconjunct'.
You are emphasizing looking at the 'Tropical Solar Path' rather than the houses. What does that mean in terms of practical astrology? Could you demonstrate what you mean with a chart example? I for one would find it much easier to follow you this way than in these broad theoretical terms.

Mark

Hello Steven,

This is a little belated but I want to thank you for your last post.

As I said, there are in fact several significators for ?wealth? and you have to weigh the entire testimony of ?wealth? in the nativity! Jupiter in the ascendant on the cusp signifies wealth through ones livelihood and one?s own efforts because Jupiter naturally signifies wealth! How strong is that testimony? Jupiter is very beneficial in a diurnal chart and placed in the strongest angle of the chart! Its weakness is a lack of essential testimony in that place and it falling occidental. But it is also the ruler of the Lot of Fortune (which is quite active falling in the place of ?acquisition?, the 11th) so in fact Jupiter has a much stronger signification towards your finances than does the 2nd house and Mercury

.

Interesting. I had only really considered Jupiter signifying wealth in reference to its trine to mercury,its rulership of the POF, and its role as ruler of the 8th..so other people's money coming to me. You have brought home to me I should have been giving more focus to its strength by angularity and sect as well as considering its natural signification as well. Thanks

I cetainly would never approach this kind of issue from just one testimony in the chart. However, I was trying to find an empirical way to put the theory into practice. But as nearly every chart will have competing testimonies it seems difficult to test out this notion in reality.

It?s not that difficult financial situations don?t come, but you always seem to pull through them without even the ?smell of smoke? on your clothes

.

Exactly!

The question in my mind is, does Mercury ?commit? its disposition to Jupiter? Is Mercury joined to Jupiter and applying? If so, then it is Jupiter that will ?perfect? Mercury?s significations. Even though Jupiter does not ?receive? Mercury, it will perfect its matters beneficially because it is the great benefic in a diurnal chart and will perfect these matters because of its nature.

No Mercury is separating from Jupiter by about a degree.

Another question one should ask is whether Mercury is joined to a heavier planet rendering its light to its domicile Gemini? For example, is Mercury joining Saturn in Pisces? Will it join Saturn before either of them leaves the sign they are in?

Again no. Saturn is only at about 4 Pisces. There is no aspect within orb just agreeable signs.

Those articles you refer to were written several years ago and since that time I have come to some better understanding of the various mitigations and how they work and why they mitigate. In particular I have gained a somewhat different understanding of how signs of equal ascensions mitigate their aversion.

So, planets being in aversion under mitigating circumstances might simply be a natal promise; namely, the promise that these two planets will eventually become active in the same time frame(s), during one?s life. When that time frame has passed, they return to being in aversion, or rather; during the period of activation, their aversion does not hinder them in being active at the same time. They remain however, for all intents and purposes, in aversion in the nativity. The significance of this activation together can be rather remarkable whenever the two planets in aversion have a rulership relation to each other.

Thanks for seeking to explain the intricacies of all this to us. Its probably partly lost on me as I haven't studied the Time Lord system of Valens but I get the basic point.

Now, on a slightly different note, I would never say I am particularly a ?Hellenistic? astrologer, although I employ many Hellenistic contributions. There are many contemporary ?Hellenistic? astrologers who assert that the Arabs ?corrupted? the pure ?pristine? Hellenistic astrology through misinterpretation and corrupting texts etc. I do not agree. That is like saying that the Arabic mathematician, Abu al-Khayyam, ?corrupted? Euclid?s Elements by solving linear and quadratic equations by methods appearing in Euclid's Elements! Or it is like saying that the Arabs corrupted Greek mathematics by introducing the concept of ?zero? which they learned from the Indians! Or they corrupted spherical geometry and trigonometric functions because they were the first to compile and prove the relationships existing between the sine, cosine, tangent and cotangent. These all appear individually alone in previous cultures. In the same way, in my humble opinion, the medieval Arabs greatest contribution to astrology is that they were able to understand the unique and individual contributions of many cultures (Indian, Persian, Chaldean, Greek etc) and understand their commonality and relationships and then produce a working and valid compilation that was ?unique? in its own right. They were not elitist exclusionists, but they were ?inclusionists? and richly rewarded science, mathematics and astrology because of this attitude. As an engineer, I use on a daily basis, the algebraic algorithms and trigonometric functions that these same ?corrupters? compiled and further developed over a thousand years ago! It is not that they ?misunderstood?. I am convinced they understood perfectly and were able to draw further valid conclusions.

I agree so much with this. I am always rather concerned with the idea perpetuated by some astrologers that there was one golden era that contained all the 'pure' true astrology. The assumption is that all the rest is a corruption and watering down of the previous astrology. I think we should study and try to learn from the whole astrological tradition.

Going in the opposite direction from the Arabs historically I feel of lot of astrologers following an exclusively hellenistic approach tend to understimate the contribution of Mespotamian astrology to the later astrological tradition.

Your point about the Arabs is well taken. I made this point elsewhere but I recommend this free video link presentation by George Saliba at the Astronomical Union Conference on The Islamic Reception of Greek Astronomy He demonstrates how the Arab and Persian astronomers and mathematicians made numerous improvements to the Greek astronomical model including the calculation of the rate of precession. It really confirms just the point you were making.

http://canalc2.u-strasbg.fr/video.asp?idvideo=8325

steven wrote:
Now, on a slightly different note, I would never say I am particularly a ?Hellenistic? astrologer, although I employ many Hellenistic contributions. There are many contemporary ?Hellenistic? astrologers who assert that the Arabs ?corrupted? the pure ?pristine? Hellenistic astrology through misinterpretation and corrupting texts etc. I do not agree. That is like saying that the Arabic mathematician, Abu al-Khayyam, ?corrupted? Euclid?s Elements by solving linear and quadratic equations by methods appearing in Euclid's Elements!

Actually it is much more like saying that misunderstandings never happen. Anyone with a sense of reality can tell you that misunderstandings can and do happen quite frequently. The translator you're referring to has cited a few of these and how they have occurred... Here is a link (browse to the section where axiomaticos is explained):

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 1256621be3

Schmidt is on record as saying that some of these "misunderstandings" led to very important breakthroughs and since you bring up mathematics (a subject that Schmidt is highly expert in), Schmidt did a dissertation on Francois Viette's misunderstanding of Greek Algebra showing how it led to modern algebra. So to imply that Schmidt thinks that all "corruptions" are useless is false. His reason for pointing these out is so that you can see the original intent where it exists and to bring clarity of thinking where there is potential muddy thinking.

What you have to understand is that Schmidt's role as a translator, particularly in the early stages of Project Hindsight, was to try to understand the authors words in the same way that the author understood them and this means leaving behind all modern assumptions about what is "supposed" to be said and any issues related to secondary intentionality, anachronism, etc that can cause a drift away from the original intent of the author. This is very difficult to do for many reasons, but one of the reasons I'd like to highlight here is the same one that caused translations of axiomaticos to drift away from the original meaning.

Many people mistakenly assume that there is a 1:1 correspondence of a Greek word to an English word (or any other language). In other words that for instance, "axiomaticos = dignity" equally and perfectly in all senses. This is not the case. Many times a translator runs into a situation where a choice has to be made based upon what word gives a better semantic feel given the overall context of a passage. When you have more than one word that fits into the situation of the same context, then you have a multivalent situation where many translations are possible for the same text. Which one do you choose? No matter which one you choose, you run into the situation where you are leaving out some of the original intent of the author. This can't be helped because in some very real sense, Greek thought is not the same as English thought (and so on). Schmidt has told me that this has happened countless times when translating the original Greek into English. The best you can do is approximate the meaning in these cases and leave copious footnotes where these occur to pick up the pieces of the "left out" meaning.

However, medieval authors have taken what was said with eyes open and have tested their understanding, so I'm not suggesting that we throw everything out because of misunderstandings. I'm also not a "purist". If I was a purist, then I would have rejected Valens tinkering with the zodiacal releasing method, sticking with 30 for both Capricorn and Aquarius, with no advance conjunction rule and perhaps loosing the bond from the trigon as Valens reports that some did originally.

I recently had an electional chart I was looking at with Moon in Sagittarius and Sun in Pisces forming an applying square. I was trying to consider whether the fact Jupiter ruled both signs in some way mitigated the square aspect. However, I reached the personal conclusion that it would always depend on the condition of the planets involved and their dispositor. For example if the scenario above occured with Jupiter in Capricorn in the 12th house I wouldn't expect the joint rulership to be much use. In fact it would seem to make the negative dimension of the aspect more emphatic. However, this is just my pragmatic approach to this.

That seems logical that it depends on the placement of the dispositor. Einstein had the Moon in Sag-Sun in Pisces square in natal with Jupiter as the joint ruler in Aqu in the 9th. He is also a good case study for the aversion thread (ASC ruler in the 6th and the lord of the 6th is also in aversion to the ASC - I have almost the exact same thing in my chart, except Jupiter is in Leo).